By Dawn De Busk

Staff Writer 

NAPLES — Local selectmen view the job of being the stewards of taxpayers’ dollars as a top priority — whether it is keeping the budget down or not losing out on valuable revenue. 

Naples selectmen expressed a desire not to miss out on the property tax on homes that have sold in Naples for hundreds of thousand dollars more than what the recorded valuation is. 

The Naples Board of Selectmen invited Town Assessor John O’Donnell to talk about chasing sales, the changing of real estate valuations based on sales. 

In a few weeks, the selectmen will hold a workshop on assessing. The assessing workshop is scheduled to start at 5 p.m. on Nov. 23. That’s an hour earlier than the selectmen’s regular meeting time. 

On Oct. 26, O’Donnell was on the board’s agenda, and “chasing sales” was discussed.

Chairman Jim Grattelo asked if the town could adjust valuation after sales occur. He said that this practice might be discouraged by the state, but it is not illegal. First off, he said he didn’t like phrase: chasing sales. 

“I’ve had a problem with the fact that we have many people who come to Naples from out-of-state and they buy a property,” Grattelo said, adding that he could cite specific examples. “I know of a property that is listed at $850,000 and sold at $1.3 million. I know a property that is taxed at $800,000 and it just got an appraised at $1.2 million. So, I suspect they would put it on the market with today’s Covid situation and everyone wanting to leave New York and Massachusetts and California and come to a safe haven like Maine. That would sell for $1.2 in 24 hours.” 

There are “properties that have sold in town for $100 to $200,000 above what is on the books. I don’t understand why we aren’t making adjustments. Why we are waiting 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 years without making adjustment as property sales are taking place in town,” Grattelo asked.

“You have said many times it against the law,” Grattelo said, addressing O’Donnell directly. “There is no law on the State of Maine books that prohibits a town from changing assessments when sales are happening.”

“In a unique town like Naples, that is a tourist town with a lot of water property and people are willing to pay top dollar, why should 80% of taxpayers in Naples subsidize 20% of the people” who are buying property valued at less and not paying full tax on it, Gratello continued. 

“Furthermore, they [the property buyers] are coming from other states where there is no such thing as a $11 or $12 tax rate. People coming from California or New York aren’t used to $11, $12 or $13 tax rates. If we were to adjust their property based on what they bought it for, it would still be grossly under what they are accustomed to paying based on the mil rate,” he said.  “I don’t know why we were told on more than one occasionthat is against the law.”  

O’Donnell, who was standing at the microphone, spoke.

“To your point: if you change an assessed value on the property in reaction to the sale of the property, and you don’t change the assessmenton any of the other properties in that area, basically you aren’t providing equitable treatment under the law,” O’Donnell said. “The state usually doesn’t do anything about sales chasing when it comes to an individual property owner being discriminated against. But if it turns into a mass appeal, where large group of property owners and it draws attention of the state tax assessors, one of the remedies is to force the town to do a revaluation.”

O’Donnell said that mostly it was not fair and equitable to “chase sales,” especially if adjustments to land prices are not being done across the board. 

The town had its most recent revaluation done in 2009. The town is planning to do it next property revaluation in 2023.  

“When has the State of Maine ever forced a town to do a reval? When is the last time that happened,” Grattelo asked.

O’Donnell said it happened on Swan’s Island.

“That is a uniquesituation. I am talking about a regular town, not an island where everyone thinks they are overtaxed,” Grattelo said.“That fact of the matter is I don’t think we are trying to create an unequal proportion of the taxes. Number one: Several residents are subsidizing properties that are being sold at a much higher rate than they are being valued at. Number two: the state would have to prove it was a willful act. We are not going out and trying to do something wrong against one person. We are trying to adjust and create property taxes based on what is going on in the market. I don’t think for one second that we are going to do anything that is so egregious that the state is going to swoop in.” Grattelo continued, “Furthermore, if that is the worse-case remedy and you are saying we should do it [a revaluation] every four or five years [to stay on top of market fluctuations], then they are going to force us to do a revaluation that we should do anyway. We are missing out on adjusting properties that are being sold and we are forcing taxpayers to subsidize — that is my issue.”